politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Based on legal history Clancy should be in prison. I agree that mother's need more help, but there's no way we will ever provide the level of care Clancy received. (every family is not getting a nanny and cleaners to help out.) If she's found not guilty then that needs to be applied to everyone equally. There are several cases right now that are very simular. We could end up with men and women who killed their whole family walking around free. That's not justice.
Edit: Letting her even spend the rest of her life in a hospital would be a major departure for how we treated poorer and darker women. The narrative around this whole case has me wondering whose running the PR campaign for Clancy and why? The judge should have sequestered the Jury. I think redu was the best outcome once it turned into a circus.
Asserting that Clancy should be unfairly punished because poor women of color are treated unfairly isn’t the argument I would use.
That's not what I'm asserting. That's how the legal system works in cases. If she was found not guilty, going forward there would be massive changes. I'm asking why her? How is the bias of the judge not being reviewed? Is sending a triple murderer regardless of circumstances to a facility with possible reintegration into society safe? Yes, every case is different but we don't even have the will to feed our people. The solution they will come up with won't benefit women. It's going to be more padded rooms and women losing custody for being a little depressed.
Andrea Yates was retried and found not guilty by reason of insanity for killing her children during a bout of postpartum psychosis. This isn’t a novel case in the slightest.
Yes. Which is good. I still don't think she should be allowed to reintegrate into society because of it. I don't agree with the death penalty and I want men/women who have other psychotic brakes to get the same judgment. That's all I'm saying.
Yall I'm so passionate about this because how politically and legally dangerous all this is. We so unskilled at strategy and implementing a long-term plan it's alarming. This is way the fascist are winning. TLDR: Be careful who you choose to defend.
This is the Trojan horse of all cases if I've ever seen one. We do not want to have the legal and political compatancy of women being called into question during this Administration and Supreme Court. Roe v Wade was first implemented under the idea of equal privacy. Essentially the decision was, Any America (Regardless of gender.) should be able to see, speak, and receive treatments from their medical provider they believe is best for them without political and social scrutiny. That protection has been removed allowing the government to know about what you and your doctor are doing. We are increasing the gender differences as seen by the law; and that is catastrophic for women. Outside of Transwomen, men are not currently going to the doctor for anything seen as illegal. (Not trying to deminish Transwomen as they are dealing with so much right now. RvW protected everyone.) Now medical information is in the legal interest of the government. Soon anyone taking mental health drugs and who have children can be monitored more closely. Add in Ai's ability to go over mountains of medical data. This is right out of the Project 2025 playbook.
Im just saying of all the parents to be in prison for harming their children due to psychosis; this women is the least deserving and the message needs to move past her. We must link the genders in this fight or it will be women who lose out.
She's not walking free tho. She's going to a psychiatric hospital instead of a prison.
I know. But that can't be a set amount of time. She could theoretically get out at some point. And once again, that's fine as long as everyone else who commits a murder during psychosis gets the same thing. Same situation, same judge, and the judge didn't even allow that ex-mother use her psychosis as a defense. The only difference was the skin color and economic bracket. Luckily that woman is getting a new trail. What about men who do harm when psychotic episodes happen? Even if we could return to the 1920s way of locking away the criminally mentally ill we are a long way from even that.
If you truly want justice, then what is more just than rehabilitation?
Rehabilitation does not always mean reintegration. I am not saying to throw her in a hole or anything. She still deserves life, love, community, education, etc., just as part of a separate community for those who crossed lines. We are not talking about a simple crime here. I have compassion and understand as someone who has lost touch with reality. I took accountability for those I harmed when I was not in control, and under no situation would I want to be found innocent if I took the lives of those closest to me (hell, anyone, not just loved ones). I personally believe prison is only for violent, sexual, and white-collar criminals. I do wish our prisons were closer to Norway's. No one deserves the inhumane treatment of American prisons. But once again, I think large cases like this have deeper implications than what is on the surface. Let us be more careful who we choose to champion when injustice is done.
What lines? Why should we say everyone on one side of a line deserves eventual freedom and everyone on the other side is condemned? That isn't justice, it's punishment.
massachusetts has extreme leniency in that the prosecution has to prove she was sane at the time beyond reasonable doubt, which is basically impossible, so not guilty and to the hospital she goes is the only outcome I see.
The narrative is because women (and anyone who has gone through mental health experiences like hers and has empathy) see their own struggles in what this lady went through, and people who never went through it think "lol woman get off because she was sad ok then." I think she's guilty and it's absolutely her fault for not leaving when she realized she was going downhill, but I can still empathize with how hard her mental health situation was.
Even when I had thoughts about harming those I truly hated and had the opportunity, I always removed myself from the situation. I know what it is like to lose touch with reality; I was still expected to take accountability after getting healthy and ultimately did. But if I had harmed so many people to this level, there is no way my mentally healthy self would plead "Not Guilty."
Yeah I mean I can't super blame a mother who's extremely anxious and depressed for not wanting to leave her kids. If she's having those thoughts, knowing the mental state she's in, it's still 100% on her to leave, like you said. Sucks that she was even in that position but :\
She remembers taking each of their lives. I don't understand how a sain person would want to be eventually free after those memories. I'd be too afraid to be around anyone let alone want to continue fighting a legal battle and being on national news. We should be focusing our energy on the tens of millions of parents struggling that still have their children. Those are the heros who's names should be all over the news.
She tried to kill herself. She didn’t want to be around after the murders.
Yes, and are you saying that attempting absolves someone of responsibility? What is she doing now? Wanting accountability for herself? No. She wants to start her new life and move on. Other parents who know they harmed their family under similar situations accepted their fates. Their stories are far more deserving. We are falling for a wealthy persons paid PR campaign, without seeing the bigger picture.
I will say this until I am blue in the face and die on this hill. This woman does not deserve to be the face of postpartum mental illness. There are tens of millions of parents fighting mental illness who do not harm their families. There are those who have, who are willing to actually have their message be positive and not performative. Championing this particular case will have negative repercussions for parents and children. It will lower the bar needed to take children away from homes and lower the legal competency of women.
I was responding to this part of your comment:
She wasn't sane. She tried to kill herself. She didn't want to be around anyone after the murders.
Doesn't deserve to be the face? Do you hear yourself? Who "deserves" to be the face of a psychotic break? You have a clear misunderstanding of the level of control someone has when they are experiencing postpartum psychosis.
You are glossing over everything inconvent. Do you hear youreself? Pick a better person to be the message of postpartum psychosis. That's all! It's dangerous to put this case up as the message. I 100% know what it's like to be in psychosis. Once medicated, I remember essentially waking up from a 3 year autopilot. It waxes and wains, you can point the rocket in general directions for those breif moments you are awake, but never actually in control. Mental Illness covers psychosis, I'm making the difference because no provider diagnosed her with psychosis until after. I think this case was picked to be in the spot light because means those women with less resources are dangerous. We are handing them the argument that will be used in front of the Supreme Court. It's saying even the best off women is less accountable and competent. Millions of parents are struggling with extreme mental illnesses including psychosis, who still have their children. I'm focused on what we need to do to help them. Ya it's a gut wrenching prospect to cast someone aside for the bigger picture, but we are losing the argument when our current options are this binary. I wish there was a better option but currently this is the 2026 version of OJ Simpsons.
I thought it was between jail and a "loony bin" not jail and freedom?
Looney bin can't be prison sentence. We have prison with hospital/medical wards. Why is that not acceptable?